Exhibitors Herald (1927)

16 EXHIBITORS HERALD October 8, 1927 EXHIBITORS HERALD Qke independent Qjrade Qaper Martin J. Quigley, Publisher Editor Published Every Wednesday by Quigley Publishing Company Publication Office: 407 So. Dearborn St., CHICAGO, U. S. A. Martin J. Quigley, President Edwin S. Clifford, Secretary George Clifford, Asst. Treasurer Member Audit Bureau of Circulations Copyright, 1927, by Quigley Publishing Company All editorial and business correspondence should be addressed to the Chicago office Other Publications: The Chicagoan and Polo, class journals; and the following motion picture trade publications published as supplements to Exhibitors Herald: Better Theatres, every fourth week, The Studio, every fourth week, and The Box Office Record & Equipment Index, semiannual. Vol. XXXI October 8, 1927 No. 4 Recommending the Good r I ''HE Church and Drama Association, formed in New York last week, is a development of genuine significance. The association brings together leading representatives of the principal religions for the purpose of recommending attractions upon the screen and stage which are entitled to recommendation. It seems to us that this is a development which should have the full interest of the amusement business — par' ticularly the motion picture business — together with any support which it is willing to receive. This movement is destructive to censorship and to the principle upon which it rests. Further, it is soundly constructive with respect to the aims and ideals of the motion picture industry. It may he added, also, that a movement guided along the lines of approving what is ileserving of approval, and ignoring what is objectionable, is based on good psychology and sound common sense. The only way the public can get good and wholesome entertainment is to support good and wholesome entertainment. To seek merely to legislate objectionable entertainment out of existence without according support to good entertainment is following a futile course. The morals of the people and the habits of the people cannot be governed by legislation alone. Censorship has failed and will continue to fail because even if it were successful in the plan it undertakes it still would fall far short of solving the problem of good and wholesome entertainment. To rule out bad items of entertainment still does not fill the screen and the stage with good items of entertainment. The very procedure of censorship frequently works to stir up interest in the play or the book which is banned. But when good entertainment is recommended and encouraged and bad entertainment is ignored, no possible harm can be accomplished and much benefit is certain to result. The men behind the Church and Drama Association know what they are about. The soundness of the plan prepares one for the list of officials which is as follows: Hon. John W. Davis, leading lawyer and former candidate for the presidency of the United States; Dr. S. Parkes Cadman, noted churchman; Dr. Cyrus Adler, eminent Jewish authority; Rev. Dr. Francis P. Duffy, scholar and chaplain of New York’s famous “Fighting Sixty-ninth,” and Prof. William Lyons Phelps of Yale University. It is not surprising that these men should strike away from the beaten paths of “reform,” crusade and censorship and adopt a plan which will be positive in its action. These men are sufficiently keen to realize the one basic thing in connection with the matter of good entertainment: Namely, that if good entertainment is to prevail over the objectionable types of entertainment it must be popularized; it must be “sold” to the public to heighten their interest in seeing it. If good entertainment is to prevail it must be profitable to its producer. Purveying entertainment is a business in the strictest sense. Producers of every kind of attractions must earn a profit if they are to continue as producers. To condemn the objectionable that a producer presents and never approve and recommend the good things he does can only serve to make him neglectful of the moral aspects of his work. The idea behind the Church and Drama Association is in no wise new or revolutionary. It is simply the idea which clear-thinking men everywhere have always held to as the best means of obtaining sound and acceptable entertainment for the public. But like many other good things the efficacy of the idea has been agreed to but nothing much has been done about it. However, now comes an association with an impressive personnel which hopes to develop the idea and make it a force in moulding the character of the entertainment for the American people. It is to be hoped that the movement will not merely be a New York City activity but that ways and means will be found to make the good work of the association effective throughout the land. -s -:f “Critic’s Pictures” NEWSPAPER criticism of motion pictures remains in a highly deplorable status. The practice itself is particularly rampant in New York City and it is there, with deplorably few exceptions, that newspaper criticism of motion pictures may be seen at its very worst. Criticism in its higher usages is, of course, expected to afford something in the way of guidance; to offer a word of encouragement when encouragement is merited and rebuke when rebuke is in order. Newspaper criticism must, perhaps, be something of an echo of popular thought but still any critic who is worthy of the name should have some principles to be guided by; should have a knowledge and vision with respect to the subject matter with which he is concerned and should have tastes which, at least, do not assay lower in the scale than those of the average reader he is writing for. New York newspaper criticism, aside from certain conspicuous exceptions which we have noted, is about equally divided between wisecracking and expressions of personal whimsies. Valid critiques are foreign to these departments. When a picture comes along that is not out of the conventional mould these so-called critics become obviously quite at sea. However, if it happens to be “foreign” or there is something in it that has a Greenwich Village approval, then they take their tip and wild effusions become the order of the columns. The recent New York premiere of “Sunrise” was a trying moment for these critics — or most of them. In “Sunrise” they beheld something quite out of the beaten path; something quite serious and purposeful; something that was obviously very good or very bad. Without any principles to guide them and without any genuine understanding of what they mean by better motion pictures, they floundered about piteously. Miss Harriet Underhill of the important Herald-Tribune, for instance, missed completely two of the only three important characterizations in the picture. Hereafter when one speaks of a “critic’s picture,” he should mean something very simple and conventional.